Thursday, February 11, 2010

Rand Paul Foregoing Principles for Base Republican Support?

Update March 1, 2010

Note Bill Johnson remarks about Rand Paul's responses in Wall Street Journal interview. Both seeking the Republican nomination for U.S. Senate in Kentucky.

Bill Johnson: I disagree with the Pauls on many issues. First, I do not agree with their pro-choice for states abortion position outlined in the ‘Sanctity of Life act’. Establishing personhood for the unborn and then denying them federal protection is even worse than Judge Blackmun's (the author of Roe vs. Wade). Second, I do not support the Paul's position in support of the closing of Guantanamo Bay and bringing the prisoners to the U.S. for trial...

...Bill Johnson: Rand Paul claims to be a Constitutional Conservative. He is not. He is a Libertarian. An honest assessment of his statements and actions during the past two decades bears this out. The most obvious example is that he denies equal protection to all unborn children under the 14th Amendment.

Is it possible this stance by Rand Paul was just becoming known to Palin after her endorsement and during the Chris Wallace interview wherein she said she didn't agree with Rand Paul on every single issue?

Net the Truth Online

Sarah Palin's political support and financial support of two very different Republican candidates for high office, Gov. Rick Perry and Rand Paul, has raised a key question pertaining to Palin's basic political tenets.

Palin's people: Tea Party activists rally around champion of the RightBy Mail Foreign Service Last updated at 5:11 PM on 06th February 2010

Comment section

Palin has always touted against big government. Her support for Rick Perry should be a red flag to the country. Palin is not what the Tea Party movement is about and I can't believe they asked her to speak. This is proof that the movement of the people has been hijacked. How can she support Rick Perry AND Rand Paul? That is complete contradiction and speaks volumes of who she really is. What a hypocrite and shill !!! Such a good little politician....- Angela, Tulsa, 07/2/2010 03:31

Shouldn't detailed questions be put to Rand Paul, seeking the Republican nomination for a Senate seat in Kentucky, about his acceptance of Sarah Palin's support?

And if it's true Rand Paul sought the support of Sarah Palin (made overtures) versus Palin out of the blue offering political support and a big campaign contribution, how does Rand Paul justify many of Palin's comments including her lack of knowledge about the duties of a Vice President?

Rand Paul Revolution Can a libertarian ride Tea Party disaffection to victory in a Republican primary?By Kelley Beaucar Vlahos

...Still, Paul readily admits he gets it from both sides. The Grayson campaign has accused Paul of flip-flopping on Guantanamo, first supporting the administration’s plans to close it, then releasing a statement in November saying, “These thugs should stand before military tribunals and be kept off American soil.” Unlike his father, Paul says he supports trying suspected terrorists in military courts—he does not believe foreign detainees are constitutionally protected—but he would “ultimately close [Gitmo] down.”

That caused a rumble among libertarians who believed that Paul was selling out. They might also have a problem with his views on abortion. He believes it is a states’ rights issue, but told TAC that he would support a federal ban on abortion if it came up in Congress, which would put him in the good graces of the conservative Republican electorate in Kentucky.

And while his recent endorsement from Steve Forbes might pass muster with libertarians, it might raise their eyebrows that Paul admitted to “making overtures” to Sarah Palin for help campaigning in the state. (This probably makes sense since Paul estimates that 75 percent of his current base “didn’t support Ron Paul” in 2008.)

http://www.amconmag.com/article/2010/mar/01/00010/

Further questions should be asked of Rand Paul about his positions in relation to Sarah Palin's recent comments during a Chris Wallace interview session.

Banging the War Drums, playing Pipes, Sarah Palin calls the Wrong Tune By Marsha B. Cohen

In the Fox News interview, Wallace asked Palin if she thinks Obama can be re-elected in 2012. Palin responded, "I got this from reading one of Buchanan's columns the other day:

Say he played the war card. Say he decided to declare war on Iran or decided to come out and do whatever he can to support Israel, which I would like him to do. That changes the dynamics in what we can assume is going to happen between now and three years...

http://www.payvand.com/news/10/feb/1089.html

Fox News Sunday Interview With Sarah Palin

...WALLACE: I know that three years is an eternity in politics. But how hard do you think President Obama will be to defeat in 2012?

PALIN: It depends on a few things. Say he played, and I got this from Buchanan, reading one of his columns the other day. Say he played the war card. Say he decided to declare war on Iran, or decided to really come out and do whatever he could to support Israel, which I would like him to do. But that changes the dynamics in what we can assume is going to happen between now and three years. Because I think if the election were today, I do not think Obama would be re-elected.

But three years from now things could change if on the national security threat --

WALLACE: You're not suggesting that he would cynically play the war card.

PALIN: I'm not suggesting that. I'm saying, if he did, things would dramatically change if he decided to toughen up and do all that he can to secure our nation and our allies. I think people would perhaps shift their thinking a little bit and decide, well, maybe he's tougher than we think he is today. And there wouldn't be as much passion to make sure that he doesn't serve another four years --

WALLACE: But assuming he continues on the path that he going on and we don't have that rally around the flag (ph) --

PALIN: Then he's not going to win.

WALLACE: Not going to win?

PALIN: He's not going to win. If he continues on the path that he has American on today -- and here's the deal -- that's what a lot of Americans are telling him today and he's not listening. Instead he's telling everybody else, listen up and I'll tell you the way it is.Well, we have a representative form of government in our democracy.

So according to Sarah Palin it would be beneficial to Obama's chances of winning in 2012 if he were to decide to declare war on Iran?

What are Rand Paul's thoughts on her misstatement - a President does not declare war, Congress does. And what are Rand Paul's inclinations about a declaration of war (by Congress as he knows) on Iran? Is he in agreement with Palin on that issue?

Further, Palin rightly notes we have a representative form of government, but wrong again, buzzers should be going off, we are not a "democracy."

How can Rand Paul justify making those "overtures" to Sarah Palin when she is clearly unfamiliar with the basic foundation of our government as a "republic" - if you can keep it - something that Rand Paul had to have learned correctly and all the reasons why while growing up with his father, Ron Paul?

And a host of questions should be put to Rand Paul on differences on key issues with his own Libertarian/Republican father, the long independent embraced Ron Paul, the one who always references our nation as a "republic," correctly so.

What is Rand Paul's position in light of Sarah Palin's offering enhancing troop presence in Afghanistan was the way President Obama should proceed.

Rand Paul:

...On the issue of national defense and terrorism, I’ll give a brief summary of what I believe:

On 9/11/2001, nineteen terrorists attacked us aboard commercial airliners. I’ll never forget coming out of an eye surgery and into a patient’s hospital room to see the attacks on television. I’ve never doubted who attacked us and have never wavered in calling for a response. In fact, I would have demanded a vote on Declaration of War with Afghanistan and voted for it. Furthermore, I think we made a mistake by waiting one and one half months to attack the terrorist bases.

http://www.randpaul2010.com/2010/02/rand-responds-to-attacks/

Rand Paul supports war in Afghanistan?Submitted by amerianna on Fri, 08/21/2009 - 22:11."And if I had been in the US senate I would have stopped them and said no more, we will have a vote. We will declare war with Afghanistan. We will declare war with Iraq. I WOULD HAVE VOTED FOR A DECLARATION OF WAR WITH AFGHANISTAN but I would have voted against a declaration of war with Iraq. But I would have made them vote. And that's the problem, they no longer pay attention to the rules."~ Rand Paul

http://www.dailypaul.com/node/102373

According to the American Conservative Magazine article, Rand Paul has a stated difference of opinion from his father's on the issue of military tribunals for terrorists.

clip

March 1, 2010 Issue American Conservative

Rand Paul Revolution

Can a libertarian ride Tea Party disaffection to victory in a Republican primary?

By Kelley Beaucar Vlahos

...Still, Paul readily admits he gets it from both sides. The Grayson campaign has accused Paul of flip-flopping on Guantanamo, first supporting the administration’s plans to close it, then releasing a statement in November saying, “These thugs should stand before military tribunals and be kept off American soil.” Unlike his father, Paul says he supports trying suspected terrorists in military courts—he does not believe foreign detainees are constitutionally protected—but he would “ultimately close [Gitmo] down.”

That caused a rumble among libertarians who believed that Paul was selling out. They might also have a problem with his views on abortion. He believes it is a states’ rights issue, but told TAC that he would support a federal ban on abortion if it came up in Congress, which would put him in the good graces of the conservative Republican electorate in Kentucky.

And while his recent endorsement from Steve Forbes might pass muster with libertarians, it might raise their eyebrows that Paul admitted to “making overtures” to Sarah Palin for help campaigning in the state. (This probably makes sense since Paul estimates that 75 percent of his current base “didn’t support Ron Paul” in 2008.)

http://www.amconmag.com/article/2010/mar/01/00010/

In response to the question posed in the above subtext to the headline, wouldn't it be imperative to ask:

Who is Rand Paul? And what does he really stand for? Turns out the first question has been asked.

Rand Paul responds to Dyche CJ column by Joe Arnold

Posted on February 10, 2010 at 4:11 PM

After a recent Courier-Journal column by Kentucky conservative John David Dyche wondered aloud "Who is Rand Paul?" the U.S. Senate candidate has written a response to Dyche's questions, but campaign manager David Adams says the newspaper is refusing to print it.

The Paul campaign has provided me a copy of Rand Paul's response, which I have reprinted as provided at the end of this entry.

For readers to be able to more easily keep track of the Q & A, I have reprinted each of Dyche's questions below, with the answer that seems to best correspond with each question. In several instances, Paul does not directly answer the question. I have also included follow up questions that I will forward to the Paul campaign for clarification. You can, however, watch and read his answers to my questions in an interview conducted with Rand Paul and his father, Ron-Paul, in late January.

Sad to think as well, Rand Paul is named after the founder of Objectivism, Ayn Rand.

How would he differ with Rand?

Ayn Rand Lexicon

http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/war.html

Finally, is Rand Paul foregoing core libertarian principles for support from a base of Republicans one faction or another, neo-cons or anti-Establishment, in order to slip into the office of United States Senator from Kentucky?

Can a libertarian ride Tea Party disaffection to victory in a Republican primary?

By Kelley Beaucar Vlahos

...It’s important to understand who these voters are. Rand Paul seems to know, having worked on the periphery of Kentucky politics for nearly two decades. On one hand, he advances a libertarian intellectual framework, nurtured in a household where Hayek, Ayn Rand, and von Mises were familiar names. His service on his dad’s campaign wasn’t just the indulgence of a dutiful son, he brought the energy of an activist. (Post-campaign, the Paul movement has become institutionalized as the Campaign for Liberty, which at one point raised over $6 million in one day from individual donations.) Rand speaks of an “American rabble” that is “bereaved at the loss of liberty,” that “wants an end to the imperial presidency” and empire-building abroad, and that aims to strip the federal budget down to its constitutionally enumerated functions.

But like his father, Rand Paul is a Republican—since 1976, he says—and he knows his chances in the May primary partly depend on how well he convinces county chairs and local Republicans that he identifies with their issues and mores. He has to, for Kentucky has closed primaries. Only registered Republicans can vote on May 18, and party switchers had to re-register by Jan. 1. Registered independents and Democrats who might be inclined to support Paul as the primary approaches are already too late.

“In order to win, I think he needs to get to know the party activists and the people who have been involved in the party politics for a long time because those are the people who are going to vote,” says Nathan Gonzales of the Washington-based Rothenberg Political Report, an established political handicapper. If not, “I don’t think he is going to bring in enough new Republican voters to win.”

Therein lies the double-bind for Rand Paul, and it may very well highlight the internecine fissures within the GOP—within conservatism itself—like no other election this year. First, Paul has to work the system he and the burgeoning national base of anti-government rabble-rousers behind him have openly eschewed. But then, he must deal with competing ideological factions within his base—the loyal libertarians who brought his dad to national prominence and the Tea Partiers who don’t naturally abide libertarian positions on war and civil liberties. On top of it all, Paul will have to live down criticism for riding his dad’s coattails and for being an “outsider” who has raised most of his campaign funds—more than $1.6 million—from outside Kentucky.

Former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin (R) recently endorsed Rand Paul, the son of Rep. Ron Paul, R-Texas, in his bid to be the Republican Senate nominee from Kentucky.

Over the weekend, during her interview on “Fox News Sunday,” Palin was asked to defend Rand Paul’s positions on closing Guantanamo, repealing the Patriot Act, against federal regulation of marriage, and ending federal regulation of drug laws.

Palin, who mistakenly referred to Rand Paul as Ron Paul, defended her candidate as a federalist.

She then seemed to indicate that she did not see eye to eye with him on everything by adding that “nobody’s ever going to find a perfect candidate.”

Kentucky Secretary of State Trey Grayson, the Republican running against Rand Paul in the GOP Senate primary, has now issued this press release saying: “Sarah Palin Refuses to Defend Ron and Rand Paul’s Dangerous Positions.”

Rand responds to attacksPublished on 11 February 2010 by David Adams in General News0 Rand Paul wrote the following response to a recently published newspaper column. The newspaper refused to print this response:

John David Dyche recently wrote an essay in the Louisville Courier Journal outlining my opponent’s mischaracterizations, innuendo, and outright lies about my positions. I think the truth would be better served by discussing my actual positions on the issues rather than my opponent’s distortions. While I will speak to many of my positions here, I invite you to visit my website randpaul2010.com which lists many issues in great detail.

But to the accusations let us go:

...

On the issue of national defense and terrorism, I’ll give a brief summary of what I believe:

On 9/11/2001, nineteen terrorists attacked us aboard commercial airliners. I’ll never forget coming out of an eye surgery and into a patient’s hospital room to see the attacks on television. I’ve never doubted who attacked us and have never wavered in calling for a response. In fact, I would have demanded a vote on Declaration of War with Afghanistan and voted for it. Furthermore, I think we made a mistake by waiting one and one half months to attack the terrorist bases.

http://www.randpaul2010.com/2010/02/rand-responds-to-attacks/

Sarah Palin and Rand Paul are having a Tea Party by Ryan JaroncykThu, Feb 04th 2010Long before the Tea Party movement sprang up in the early days of President Obama, the liberty movement was catching fire. Dedicated to a pro-constitution, fiscally conservative, and anti-war GOP presidential candidate, the liberty movement barnstormed the nation with an explosion of grassroots enthusiasm. When Texas Congressman, Dr. Ron Paul, challenged the GOP establishment in 2007-2008, tens of thousands of supporters organized record breaking, one-day "money bombs", catchy YouTube videos, massive sign waving events, and even a blimp, without any assistance from special interests, party elites, or network celebrities.

Then, in early 2009, a few weeks after Obama's inauguration, the Tea Party movement began to show its head, enflamed by the bailouts and record government spending. Little did many people realize, however, that the "Tea Party" concept originated in December 2007, when over 58,000 grassroots supporters donated a one-day record of $6 million to Dr. Paul's presidential campaign on the anniversary of the original 1773 Boston Tea Party.

As the Tea Party began to slowly emerge, the "Liberty movement" was already in full swing. Dr. Paul had inspired a whole slate of grassroots candidates to launch campaigns for the 2010 elections. Candidates such Dr. Rand Paul (his son), Peter Schiff, Adam Kokesh, RJ Harris, John Dennis, Jake Towne, and Debra Medina began gearing up to run for various offices. And as the Tea Party rallies began to spread throughout the nation in 2009, many of these candidates were invited to give speeches and make appearances at Tea Party events.

But, as the Tea Party movement began to unfold, a troubling phenomenon started to emerge. Fox News, GOP elites, network personalities, and powerful special interests began to slowly, but insidiously take the reins. Seeing their opportunity, GOP strategists began to exploit the budding grassroots movement for their own political gain. Suddenly, the movement became obsessed with excorciating the Democrats and President Obama, when, in fact, the "shredding of the Consitution" by President Bush and a largely Republican Congress is what inspired the earliest tea party supporters in 2007 & 2008. As a result, disaffected Democrats and open-minded Independents strongly rejected the Tea Party's partisan invective.

Now, the Tea Party movement is battling for its soul. With $100,000 payments to Sarah Palin, $500 tickets to attend a "grassroots" convention, and Republican strategists such as Sal Russo pulling the strings behind the scenes, the Tea Party movement is fighting the onslaught of a full-fledged, GOP establishment hijacking.

But, strangely enough, so is the Liberty movement.

Recently, Dr. Rand Paul, who is dominating the polls in the US Senate race in Kentucky, received an official endorsement from Sarah Palin. Months earlier, he had stated that his campaign was "making overtures" to gain her support. Since the endorsement, Rand has showered Palin with glowing praise, even though some feel their economic and foreign policy views significantly differ in certain areas.

Our commitment has been to provide viewers with an effort to find truth on a variety of public policy issues, and relay findings, to expand a base of knowledge for viewer information and opinion-forming, no matter one's political affiliation.

We see danger for us all on three fronts:

An announced potential for a global financial crisis and projected global currency, global government, and new world order.

A coming to fruition plan for some 34 states to propose a uniform amendment or amendments to the U.S. Constitution which may automatically present an Article V Convention.

An organized effort by populists to support state legislatures to call an Article V Convention for any number of reasons.

We continue to work to present the kind of information to convince viewers to be ever vigilant. No matter whom we cite on our pages, when we find groups, organizations, political Parties, or notable individuals in support of any one of the above, we are wary, no matter if we agree on other issues of importance.

We have for instance cited Judge Napolitano's Freedom series on the Constitution broadcast on Fox Nation, yet we remain strongly wary of him due to his stated position to encourage Tea Party participants and others to push state legislatures to adopt a resolution to call for a 2nd Convention.

We cannot stress how important it is for your objection to be heard to your own state's legislature and Governor. According to tracking results from some notables including DeWeese and Gary Kreeps - barring it may be ruled previous resolutions adopted by an individual state and already on the formal-call list are voided due to non-uniformity or outdatedness - there may already be some 31 or 32 potentially valid Convention Calls.

34 state resolutions are the magic number which will initiate, basically automatically, a call for convening an Article V Convention.

This site also notes an essay by Gary Kreep, co-founder of the United States Justice Foundation. He too notes how very close an automatic Constitutional Convention call is given factors that even include some states' attempts to rescind former calls.

We also note an article by Kelleigh Nelson Saving the Republic Part 3 which disputes an automatic call is only some two states away. We also note Nelson's reference to a book we also have in our files which is among the best we've read.

Constitution In Crisis Joan Collins and Ken Hill

We'll list other material relied upon to come to the conclusion that despite how many states in actuality have standing convention calls, action is paramount today to thwart a potential gathering storm for support such as Rand Paul's and Judge Andrew Napalitano's.

Our hope is to be among those who continue to warn it is imperative a 2nd Constitutional Convention never happen. The mechanism for Congress to act on presenting its own Amendment or Amendments to the Constitution is already in place. The normal route has not been used all that much because it is known the Amendment or Amendments which are then ratified by the next step - states ratification process - will stand as an alteration of the U.S. Constitution unless and until a subsequent Congress mounts a similar process to repeal the Amendment.

So many others have long-standing in noting the absolute dangers of an Article V Convention.

Among them:

Phyllis Schlafly

McManus

John Birch Society

World Net Daily

We do not claim support with the named on every issue.

It is crucial we, the people of the United States prevent our representatives from enacting any measures that take away U.S. sovereignty and curb or curtail individual and unalienable rights.

You can help by becoming informed and using the power of the pen to attempt to convince such as Rand Paul and Judge Andrew Napolitano of these noted dangers of an Article V Constitutional Convention.

Climatologist Skeptic James Spann

Incognito for security purposes

My blog was caught twice in a robot spam review and had been offline for several months. Fortunately, Blogger Help Forum exchanges with a real person and top contributor resulted in Net the Truth Online being deemed OK. Should the spam-robots misidentify us again, here's where and what happened. My blog pre=this=mess was going just fine. Then I received notice while away my blog was deleted. Help. http://www.google.com/support/forum/p/blogger/thread?tid=1714c2aa73405a98&hl=en&fid=1714c2aa73405a980004933503778adc